Excerpt: Discussion of: Imperial Translation during the End Times – "Glossary of Roman History", Alessandro Giannini; Datalinks Archive (AD 2025)
The heritage and prestige of Rome in the Occidental world across all religious and cultural boundaries was and still is unparalleled in history. The few enduring classical works of literature halfheartedly read and copied in a handful of monasteries of the Occident and, indisputably, more importantly, the Bible served as the ideological and theological foundations for the concept of the Roman Empire as an unchanging monolith in recorded human history, the last of the great empires of the past. While the reality is that knowledge and understanding of ancient Rome were imperfect at best during the Carolingian Era, mitigated to some degree by the Carolingian cultural renaissance, there is no denying that the fascination of the Roman Empire, in particular, carried on well after the reigns of Charlemagne and Pope Leo III, who have arguably shaped the idea of “Imperial Translation” or Translatio Imperii. The emulation of Rome or, perhaps more accurately, what contemporaries thought of as “Roman” began with Charlemagne who was crowned by Pope Leo III as Imperator Romanorum. It was Charlemagne, too, who continued to be depicted in contemporary coins in the undeniable Roman fashion with a laurel of oak leaves. His successors, especially in Italy where most of the old Roman institutions have survived the various invasions since the fall of Rome, progressively romanized over the centuries after the fateful year of 800, until there was no denying of a rebirth of a Western Roman Empire, perhaps, the Roman Empire!
This revisionist and factually wrong presentation of the Carolingians, however, seeks to undermine the robust historic evidence of domestic and foreign issues and pressures that point towards a certainly more nuanced and unquestionably less romantic picture of Carolingian Europe. For one, Charlemagne has swiftly dropped the title of Imperator Romanorum out of fear of provoking the already distrustful Eastern Romans of Constantinople. Furthermore, it was the Frankish Empire, not the Roman one of past days, that sparked a wave of impressions and well-meaning emulations across Europe, most reflected in the Slavic World where król (Polan), král (Old Bohemian and Moravian), kralj (Carinthian), korol (Ruthenian) all came to mean “King”, and all descended from the namesake Charles the Great. The various Franko-Carolingian kings seemed to have been well-aware of their cultural supremacy on the continent and were thus reluctant to fully embrace a Roman identity, especially as the heartland of the empire, what came to be known as Lotharingia or Lorraine, was but a border region for the ancient Roman Empire. After the end of Carolingian rule North of the Alps, both the Widonids, Brunonids, and Babenbergs of Neustria, Saxony, and Franconia respectively purposefully legitimized their rule not only through claiming kinship to the Carolingian Dynasty but also through the emulation of Frankish legal and cultural customs, reflected in dresses and titles used through these duchies and kingdoms in the aftermath of Lothair III’s rule.
It rings true, however, that there was indeed a certain fascination with the Roman Empire, even though the Frankish upper nobility refused to let go of their uniquely Frankish identity within the 10th century. It was known by contemporaries that a majority of settlements at that time stemmed from former Roman settlements, even more so in the former Roman nucleus of Italy, where the Pontiff still reigned from the eternal city over all of Christendom, or at least what the Pontiff received to be in his right to do. But by the 9th and 10th centuries, the city of Rome was but a shadow of its former self, where ancient ruins dominated the city landscape and remain as a tribute to the Pax Romana. Numerous Carolingian kings tried to alleviate the city by renovating minor districts of the city, especially under Emperor Carloman and Lothair III. Lothair III, in particular, has used the loot of the punitive expeditions into Meridia to fund the building of a new imperial palace in Rome, though construction has halted after his passing in 932 and did not continue until the end of the 9th century. Indeed, Rome as a city was less welcoming as one might expect from an entity colloquially known as Holy Roman Empire, as both the Pope and the Roman aristocracy of Latium proved time and time again that the designated emperors of Rome were not inherently welcome to what was, in reality, the periphery of the Lombard Italian kingdom whose heartland had become the Po Plain. Indeed, all Carolingian Emperors before the 11th century never resided in Rome for longer periods of time, as the city was evidently not large enough for both the secular and the spiritual leader of Occidental Christianity, and most emperors chose instead to settle down in Pavia or Ravenna in Northern Italy.
These challenges that the Carolingians have faced with the concept and reality of Rome have not hindered, but instead in all likelihood have given rise to the aforementioned concept of Imperial Translation which stemmed from the belief that the Roman Empire is the last empire of history before the events of the Apocalypse of John unfold. In particular, the following verses shaped this understanding in the second chapter of the Book of Daniel in which Daniel interpreted the vision of Nebuchadnezzar II the Great of Babylon:
“After you, another kingdom will arise, inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth. Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron — for iron breaks and smashes everything — and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others.” (Daniel 2:39ff)
These so-called Four Kingdoms of Daniel, four successive kingdoms beginning with Babylon, will precede the Apocalypse and the Kingdom of God.
“In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.” (Daniel 2:44)
The eschatological relevance and theological significance in general of this chapter and the Book of Daniel at large are believed to be self-evident. As most theological discussions, the nature of the Four Kingdoms of Daniel was and still is hotly debated, though the general consensus of the Carolingian clergy seems to have been that the four kingdoms start with Babylon, which is succeeded by the First Persian Empire, which itself is followed by the Greeks represented by Alexander the Great and his Macedonian Empire. At last, the Greeks were vanquished by the Romans who stand as the last temporal kingdom before the return of the Messiah. A hypothetical fifth kingdom would invalidate this interpretation and thus what was perceived to be God’s infallible plans. Hence, the Roman Empire still needed to exist in 10th century Europe.
The informed student of history might now suggest the Rhomaian Empire of Constantinople as "the" contemporary Roman Empire. After all, it was the direct heir of Theodosius the Great, the last ruler of both the Western and Eastern Roman Empire before it split permanently, and thus the immediate continuation of the Roman Empire in every sense of the word. Indeed, this was the impediment not only in regard to a full embracement of the idea that the Holy Roman Empire of the West was truly Rome and not the Hellenized Romans of the East but also for the relationship between the Carolingian Emperors and Constantinople. While figures such as Louis II and Lothair III aggressively embraced their perceived Roman heritage against the claims of the Rhomaians of Constantinople in embassies sent to the courts of Constantinople or campaigns against rogue Rhomaian vassals or governors in Meridia, the vast majority of Carolingian Emperors in the 9th and 10th centuries remained vague as to how they are either succeeding Constantinople as some sort of Third Rome or even descent from the Roman Empire of old directly.
Even so, this biblically influenced, and evidently eschatological, concept of Imperial Translation emerged out of a growing apocalypticist attitude in the lower clergy and the laity in Christendom, though the extent and nature of which is hotly contested. The controversy largely boils down to the lack of contemporary evidence outside of minor complaints or scurrying and usually jeering remarks. Contemporary evidence, however, was typically written by a clerical elite that fervently opposed the notion of chiliasm and inbound end times and thus should be more critically approached [1]. This opposition partially originates from the theological stance that the date of the events of the Apocalypse of John is indeed unknowable. Most notably Mark 13:31-33 remind Christendom of the futility of such claims:
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come.”
Not only are such apocalypticist beliefs regularly theologically provocative, to say the least, but they also hold political weight. An apocalyptic claim, after it proves wrong, usually not only devastates one’s personal reputation but also regularly leads to political persecution and even death. For apocalypticist beliefs are powerful political tools which enthuse peasants of no rank and thorough knowledge about core Christian beliefs; The promises of generations worth of peace, unimaginable wealth on the material plane of existence, and a just and brutal penalty for all sinners, of course chiefly for those who had abused their God-given power against the deprived, unprivileged, and vulnerable to tyrannize and sin, have spread among the peasantry to the lower levels of nobility during the late 10th century.
This is reflected in a letter of the “anti-apocalypticist” abbot St. Childeric of Mechelen to King Guy I of Neustria in 985 who commented on the fundamental misunderstanding of the laity about the Apocalypse of John: “Innumerable persons falsely recognized the Hungarians and the Northmen [as] Gog and Magog, harbingers of the Antichrist. Many died in these times of brutality, but God will recognize his own.” There he references Libentius of Prüm who, only five decades ago, created a small following as the Hungarians killed Lothair III, supposedly the last ruler of the Frankish, and thus, Roman Empire. In due time, Libentius became a minor force of opposition against Henry I of Francia, though he was deposed and eventually died in disgrace after the public hysteria around the invading Magyars, and the accompanying excitement for the final Kingdom of God, died down. This is followed by the partial scriptural quote “Impii agent impie, neque omnes intelligent impii.” from Daniel 12:10, a quote which undoubtedly reveals the contempt St. Childeric has had for the apocalypticist streams of his time:
“Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.”
Again, it must be reemphasized that this certainly didn’t translate into a universal terror in the face of the coming Year 1000 (or perhaps 1033 as some later claimed). But it evidently did play some role in the sociocultural zeitgeist.
Nevertheless, despite the apparent opposition in the clergy, the eschatological idea of Imperial Translation became increasingly more prominent as its use as a political tool grew over time. Unquestionably inspired by contemporary Rhomaian beliefs of the empire as the Katechon, the restrainer which kept the prophecy alive, and a last global Christian ruler before the return of the messiah, it became a common mystic belief in the Occident that Charlemagne was to return from the holy city of Jerusalem to fulfill this promise. Indeed, by the twilight of the 10th century, Charlemagne had become an Occidental mythical figure roaming the narrow streets of Jerusalem as a humble pilgrim who shall return to the Frankish world to unite all of Christendom and vanquish its Pagan or heretical enemies. The Holy Roman Emperors, descendants of Charlemagne through a direct line of succession, began to embrace this heritage more dramatically under Hugh I who reportedly began to roam Ravenna in ceremonial cloaks adorned with various celestial symbols which, if true, suggests that Hugh I believed that he was among the last temporal rulers of the Earth.
Alas, the idea of Imperial translation also put pressure on the emperor; It became a vital matter in the zeitgeist of the early 11th century to make a distinction between the “good” last global emperor and the “evil” Antichrist lusting after more power, both being traditionally associated with a growing empire. The decline of the Carolingian Dynasty and the emergence of various “petty” kingdoms in the North was interpreted as a sign of the decline of the empire through the Antichrist who lurks in the shadows to bring down Christendom. […]
This social development continued well after the years 1000 and 1033. [2] […]
Description: The Apocalypse of Saint John the Evangelist from the medieval illuminated manuscript of the same name, sponsored by Henry the Good and dated around 1030 AD.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] An issue 19th and even 20th-century historians IOTL handwaved away, proclaiming that chiliasm or even millennialism in the 10th century was either not existing or only relegated to the fringe cases. This came to be after the reverse extreme, some all-encompassing fear and excitement in Christian society of the end days coming before the ominous year 1000, had been the established notion in the years preceding more critical analysis of this topic.
[2] As IOTL, 42 Generations after the birth/resurrection of Jesus Christ, or various other speculated dates for the end times in the future. Admittedly, this will become more important later on, as IOTL, but I figured it would be useful to establish the scenery beforehand.
The heritage and prestige of Rome in the Occidental world across all religious and cultural boundaries was and still is unparalleled in history. The few enduring classical works of literature halfheartedly read and copied in a handful of monasteries of the Occident and, indisputably, more importantly, the Bible served as the ideological and theological foundations for the concept of the Roman Empire as an unchanging monolith in recorded human history, the last of the great empires of the past. While the reality is that knowledge and understanding of ancient Rome were imperfect at best during the Carolingian Era, mitigated to some degree by the Carolingian cultural renaissance, there is no denying that the fascination of the Roman Empire, in particular, carried on well after the reigns of Charlemagne and Pope Leo III, who have arguably shaped the idea of “Imperial Translation” or Translatio Imperii. The emulation of Rome or, perhaps more accurately, what contemporaries thought of as “Roman” began with Charlemagne who was crowned by Pope Leo III as Imperator Romanorum. It was Charlemagne, too, who continued to be depicted in contemporary coins in the undeniable Roman fashion with a laurel of oak leaves. His successors, especially in Italy where most of the old Roman institutions have survived the various invasions since the fall of Rome, progressively romanized over the centuries after the fateful year of 800, until there was no denying of a rebirth of a Western Roman Empire, perhaps, the Roman Empire!
This revisionist and factually wrong presentation of the Carolingians, however, seeks to undermine the robust historic evidence of domestic and foreign issues and pressures that point towards a certainly more nuanced and unquestionably less romantic picture of Carolingian Europe. For one, Charlemagne has swiftly dropped the title of Imperator Romanorum out of fear of provoking the already distrustful Eastern Romans of Constantinople. Furthermore, it was the Frankish Empire, not the Roman one of past days, that sparked a wave of impressions and well-meaning emulations across Europe, most reflected in the Slavic World where król (Polan), král (Old Bohemian and Moravian), kralj (Carinthian), korol (Ruthenian) all came to mean “King”, and all descended from the namesake Charles the Great. The various Franko-Carolingian kings seemed to have been well-aware of their cultural supremacy on the continent and were thus reluctant to fully embrace a Roman identity, especially as the heartland of the empire, what came to be known as Lotharingia or Lorraine, was but a border region for the ancient Roman Empire. After the end of Carolingian rule North of the Alps, both the Widonids, Brunonids, and Babenbergs of Neustria, Saxony, and Franconia respectively purposefully legitimized their rule not only through claiming kinship to the Carolingian Dynasty but also through the emulation of Frankish legal and cultural customs, reflected in dresses and titles used through these duchies and kingdoms in the aftermath of Lothair III’s rule.
It rings true, however, that there was indeed a certain fascination with the Roman Empire, even though the Frankish upper nobility refused to let go of their uniquely Frankish identity within the 10th century. It was known by contemporaries that a majority of settlements at that time stemmed from former Roman settlements, even more so in the former Roman nucleus of Italy, where the Pontiff still reigned from the eternal city over all of Christendom, or at least what the Pontiff received to be in his right to do. But by the 9th and 10th centuries, the city of Rome was but a shadow of its former self, where ancient ruins dominated the city landscape and remain as a tribute to the Pax Romana. Numerous Carolingian kings tried to alleviate the city by renovating minor districts of the city, especially under Emperor Carloman and Lothair III. Lothair III, in particular, has used the loot of the punitive expeditions into Meridia to fund the building of a new imperial palace in Rome, though construction has halted after his passing in 932 and did not continue until the end of the 9th century. Indeed, Rome as a city was less welcoming as one might expect from an entity colloquially known as Holy Roman Empire, as both the Pope and the Roman aristocracy of Latium proved time and time again that the designated emperors of Rome were not inherently welcome to what was, in reality, the periphery of the Lombard Italian kingdom whose heartland had become the Po Plain. Indeed, all Carolingian Emperors before the 11th century never resided in Rome for longer periods of time, as the city was evidently not large enough for both the secular and the spiritual leader of Occidental Christianity, and most emperors chose instead to settle down in Pavia or Ravenna in Northern Italy.
These challenges that the Carolingians have faced with the concept and reality of Rome have not hindered, but instead in all likelihood have given rise to the aforementioned concept of Imperial Translation which stemmed from the belief that the Roman Empire is the last empire of history before the events of the Apocalypse of John unfold. In particular, the following verses shaped this understanding in the second chapter of the Book of Daniel in which Daniel interpreted the vision of Nebuchadnezzar II the Great of Babylon:
“After you, another kingdom will arise, inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth. Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron — for iron breaks and smashes everything — and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others.” (Daniel 2:39ff)
These so-called Four Kingdoms of Daniel, four successive kingdoms beginning with Babylon, will precede the Apocalypse and the Kingdom of God.
“In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.” (Daniel 2:44)
The eschatological relevance and theological significance in general of this chapter and the Book of Daniel at large are believed to be self-evident. As most theological discussions, the nature of the Four Kingdoms of Daniel was and still is hotly debated, though the general consensus of the Carolingian clergy seems to have been that the four kingdoms start with Babylon, which is succeeded by the First Persian Empire, which itself is followed by the Greeks represented by Alexander the Great and his Macedonian Empire. At last, the Greeks were vanquished by the Romans who stand as the last temporal kingdom before the return of the Messiah. A hypothetical fifth kingdom would invalidate this interpretation and thus what was perceived to be God’s infallible plans. Hence, the Roman Empire still needed to exist in 10th century Europe.
The informed student of history might now suggest the Rhomaian Empire of Constantinople as "the" contemporary Roman Empire. After all, it was the direct heir of Theodosius the Great, the last ruler of both the Western and Eastern Roman Empire before it split permanently, and thus the immediate continuation of the Roman Empire in every sense of the word. Indeed, this was the impediment not only in regard to a full embracement of the idea that the Holy Roman Empire of the West was truly Rome and not the Hellenized Romans of the East but also for the relationship between the Carolingian Emperors and Constantinople. While figures such as Louis II and Lothair III aggressively embraced their perceived Roman heritage against the claims of the Rhomaians of Constantinople in embassies sent to the courts of Constantinople or campaigns against rogue Rhomaian vassals or governors in Meridia, the vast majority of Carolingian Emperors in the 9th and 10th centuries remained vague as to how they are either succeeding Constantinople as some sort of Third Rome or even descent from the Roman Empire of old directly.
Even so, this biblically influenced, and evidently eschatological, concept of Imperial Translation emerged out of a growing apocalypticist attitude in the lower clergy and the laity in Christendom, though the extent and nature of which is hotly contested. The controversy largely boils down to the lack of contemporary evidence outside of minor complaints or scurrying and usually jeering remarks. Contemporary evidence, however, was typically written by a clerical elite that fervently opposed the notion of chiliasm and inbound end times and thus should be more critically approached [1]. This opposition partially originates from the theological stance that the date of the events of the Apocalypse of John is indeed unknowable. Most notably Mark 13:31-33 remind Christendom of the futility of such claims:
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come.”
Not only are such apocalypticist beliefs regularly theologically provocative, to say the least, but they also hold political weight. An apocalyptic claim, after it proves wrong, usually not only devastates one’s personal reputation but also regularly leads to political persecution and even death. For apocalypticist beliefs are powerful political tools which enthuse peasants of no rank and thorough knowledge about core Christian beliefs; The promises of generations worth of peace, unimaginable wealth on the material plane of existence, and a just and brutal penalty for all sinners, of course chiefly for those who had abused their God-given power against the deprived, unprivileged, and vulnerable to tyrannize and sin, have spread among the peasantry to the lower levels of nobility during the late 10th century.
This is reflected in a letter of the “anti-apocalypticist” abbot St. Childeric of Mechelen to King Guy I of Neustria in 985 who commented on the fundamental misunderstanding of the laity about the Apocalypse of John: “Innumerable persons falsely recognized the Hungarians and the Northmen [as] Gog and Magog, harbingers of the Antichrist. Many died in these times of brutality, but God will recognize his own.” There he references Libentius of Prüm who, only five decades ago, created a small following as the Hungarians killed Lothair III, supposedly the last ruler of the Frankish, and thus, Roman Empire. In due time, Libentius became a minor force of opposition against Henry I of Francia, though he was deposed and eventually died in disgrace after the public hysteria around the invading Magyars, and the accompanying excitement for the final Kingdom of God, died down. This is followed by the partial scriptural quote “Impii agent impie, neque omnes intelligent impii.” from Daniel 12:10, a quote which undoubtedly reveals the contempt St. Childeric has had for the apocalypticist streams of his time:
“Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.”
Again, it must be reemphasized that this certainly didn’t translate into a universal terror in the face of the coming Year 1000 (or perhaps 1033 as some later claimed). But it evidently did play some role in the sociocultural zeitgeist.
Nevertheless, despite the apparent opposition in the clergy, the eschatological idea of Imperial Translation became increasingly more prominent as its use as a political tool grew over time. Unquestionably inspired by contemporary Rhomaian beliefs of the empire as the Katechon, the restrainer which kept the prophecy alive, and a last global Christian ruler before the return of the messiah, it became a common mystic belief in the Occident that Charlemagne was to return from the holy city of Jerusalem to fulfill this promise. Indeed, by the twilight of the 10th century, Charlemagne had become an Occidental mythical figure roaming the narrow streets of Jerusalem as a humble pilgrim who shall return to the Frankish world to unite all of Christendom and vanquish its Pagan or heretical enemies. The Holy Roman Emperors, descendants of Charlemagne through a direct line of succession, began to embrace this heritage more dramatically under Hugh I who reportedly began to roam Ravenna in ceremonial cloaks adorned with various celestial symbols which, if true, suggests that Hugh I believed that he was among the last temporal rulers of the Earth.
Alas, the idea of Imperial translation also put pressure on the emperor; It became a vital matter in the zeitgeist of the early 11th century to make a distinction between the “good” last global emperor and the “evil” Antichrist lusting after more power, both being traditionally associated with a growing empire. The decline of the Carolingian Dynasty and the emergence of various “petty” kingdoms in the North was interpreted as a sign of the decline of the empire through the Antichrist who lurks in the shadows to bring down Christendom. […]
This social development continued well after the years 1000 and 1033. [2] […]
Description: The Apocalypse of Saint John the Evangelist from the medieval illuminated manuscript of the same name, sponsored by Henry the Good and dated around 1030 AD.
[1] An issue 19th and even 20th-century historians IOTL handwaved away, proclaiming that chiliasm or even millennialism in the 10th century was either not existing or only relegated to the fringe cases. This came to be after the reverse extreme, some all-encompassing fear and excitement in Christian society of the end days coming before the ominous year 1000, had been the established notion in the years preceding more critical analysis of this topic.
[2] As IOTL, 42 Generations after the birth/resurrection of Jesus Christ, or various other speculated dates for the end times in the future. Admittedly, this will become more important later on, as IOTL, but I figured it would be useful to establish the scenery beforehand.
Last edited:
